+- Southperry.net (https://www.southperry.net)
+-- Forum: Social (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=14)
+--- Forum: Current Events (https://www.southperry.net/forumdisplay.php?fid=55)
+--- Thread: Rainbows banned at Mississauga Catholic school (/showthread.php?tid=42792)
Rainbows banned at Mississauga Catholic school - Satellite - 2011-06-09
KhainiWest Wrote:Now what? lol. You don't have much foresight do you? The entire purpose of my comment was that you didn't read it because you were ignorant of the intentions of the religion, its reasoning for its teachings, and frankly previous comments showing an illogical intolerance towards religion. Now what you've told me is that you've read it and couldn't comprehend it, clearly. I think the latter is more offensive.So you are saying that I don't know intentions of religion and reasoning for its teachings? That's true. I don't. But do you?
Bible has many writers and you aren't any of them. You have your own opinion about Bible, its teachings and I have mine. What is "ignorant" is that you are trying to feed me with your PERSONAL opinions.
You really hate that I'm not superstitious, don't you? You really want to turn this thread into a flamewar instead of having intelligent discussion? I though you would have learned something from the previous thread.
Rainbows banned at Mississauga Catholic school - Eos - 2011-06-09
Satellite Wrote:You really hate that I'm not superstitious, don't you? You really want to turn this thread into a flamewar instead of having intelligent discussion? I though you would have learned something from the previous thread.
It takes two to argue, so why don't both of you drop that particular side tangent now please.
Rainbows banned at Mississauga Catholic school - KhainiWest - 2011-06-09
I think you misunderstand, much like everything else it seems. I'm not a superstitious person, at all. Never been to church, never did anything religious in my lifetime. It's your condencing tone towards people who choose to be as such. You aren't better than them because of their beliefs, stop talking as such. See, I apply history, which would be the influences of the time frame that create these rules, such as anal sex being unnatural, and sex only being for procreation.
Two gay man can't procreate, therefore the sex is unnatural, this is their entire reasoning behind this. If a man has anal sex with a women, it's the same scenario. The only thing I found in the last thread, is proof of your reputation.
Rainbows banned at Mississauga Catholic school - Hanabira.Kage - 2011-06-09
Connor Wrote:"we don't hate gay people, but it's when they have intercourse that they are sinning because God wanted intercourse to be between a man and a woman only."
Pretty sure Jesus would want a word with that priest. If you don't get what I'm saying, then forget I said anything (because I don't want to make biblical references here).
Homosexuality is technically natural since it can be found in nature (an example being a certain species of lizard, which consists only of females), but then again "homosexual" animals are typically of species that either can't procreate heterosexually or are hermaphrodites.
Regarding the choice-nature debate, I stand by the belief that since there is no absolute proof that homosexuality is a choice, and neither is there any absolute proof that homosexuality is natural, it should be dropped since it'll end up as a probatio diabolica whichever way you argue it.
Homosexuality is technically natural since it can be found in nature (an example being a certain species of lizard, which consists only of females), but then again "homosexual" animals are typically of species that either can't procreate heterosexually or are hermaphrodites.
Regarding the choice-nature debate, I stand by the belief that since there is no absolute proof that homosexuality is a choice, and neither is there any absolute proof that homosexuality is natural, it should be dropped since it'll end up as a probatio diabolica whichever way you argue it.
Rainbows banned at Mississauga Catholic school - Satellite - 2011-06-09
^actually homosexuality can be found in species that can reproduce. There was a study of this few years ago.
KhainiWest Wrote:Two gay man can't procreate, therefore the sex is unnatural, this is their entire reasoning behind this. If a man has anal sex with a women, it's the same scenario. The only thing I found in the last thread, is proof of your reputation.Personally I take homosexuality as a developmental disorder in hormones. Some gay men even sound like a girl, which is something you cannot just choose.
I googled it and there's evidence for this too.
Rainbows banned at Mississauga Catholic school - KhainiWest - 2011-06-09
Satellite Wrote:Personally I take homosexuality as a developmental disorder in hormones. Some gay men even sound like a girl, which is something you cannot just choose.
I googled it and there's evidence for this too.
I don't believe the question of homosexualities origin ever came into question, simply how the stigma was originally generated, specifically in religion.
Rainbows banned at Mississauga Catholic school - Eos - 2011-06-09
KhainiWest Wrote:I don't believe the question of homosexualities origin ever came into question, simply how the stigma was originally generated, specifically in religion.
It would be the very epicenter of the entire nature vs nurture argument that's occurring around the religious argument, so yes, it was relevant.
Rainbows banned at Mississauga Catholic school - KhainiWest - 2011-06-09
Eosian Wrote:It would be the very epicenter of the entire nature vs nurture argument that's occurring around the religious argument, so yes, it was relevant.
I was discussing the stigma, not what homosexuality possibly is. I don't think choice was probably on their "top reasons to make it a sin" list. In the general discussion it's on topic, but as a response to my quote it didn't retort to anything I posted.
Eosian Wrote:Developmental disorders are a natural phenomenon.
It was a rebuttal to your calling it unnatural.
I seem to recall having asked both of you to stop using this thread as a means to continue your personal bickering.
I don't recall anything hostile in my last post or his post, simply a clarification of our stances, much like our conversation so are we bickering
. Then it's simply misunderstood, I was merely saying that based on the influence of the culture, sex wasn't seen as pleasure, it was seen as a means of procreation, or tried to. So if a women and a women have sex, and they aren't procreating, therefore misusing sex. Better way to put it I suppose.
Rainbows banned at Mississauga Catholic school - Eos - 2011-06-09
Developmental disorders are a natural phenomenon.
It was a rebuttal to your calling it unnatural.
I seem to recall having asked both of you to stop using this thread as a means to continue your personal bickering.
Rainbows banned at Mississauga Catholic school - ImagineAll - 2011-06-09
Satellite Wrote:I'm an atheist. I hate Christians.
Rainbows banned at Mississauga Catholic school - Haseo - 2011-06-10
Satellite Wrote:The better question would be, why does the government support "school" that manipulates kids, abuses them and discriminates against minorities, while trying to teach their bad morals to the kids too?
There are schools that don't do this?
No, seriously. There are?
Rainbows banned at Mississauga Catholic school - Flonne - 2011-06-10
Haseo Wrote:There are schools that don't do this?
No, seriously. There are?
Private schools. Sometimes.
Well, not often, usually just the very small ones. I got lucky and attended a private school with only 250 kids across K-12. Aside from the slight Liberal bias it was pretty neutral.